Does the Bible Teach A Spiritual Israel?

[praise_yeshua]

I don't see Israel mentioned here. However, Jesus did say when He changed Simon's name to Peter that his name is now Peter, and upon this rock WILL I BUILD My church. That is future tense. The church is Jesus body, Israel is not. Israel is the wife of God, while the church is the bride of Christ.

Clarify please....

Is Peter the cornerstone?

Even Peter appealed to Christ directly.

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

He quotes Isaiah 8:14 from the Greek OT.

We go at it from time to time on this subject. I've made more enemies on this subject than I have most anything else.

You are obviously wrong about the foundation of the church. There is only ONE rock. So when was this "stone" laid?

 

[Jim]

The old covenant was replaced, the old covenant being the Mosaic. And the new covenant has a greater prophet in a line that is not continued in death. This prophet is of the line of Melchizedek, and as such, not part of the Mosaic covenant. He is the purveyor and priest of a greater covenant. And, I believe I mentioned, this priest will never die and be replaced by another. This priest lives forever. He also enters into the holiest place by His own blood. This is why Hebrews is such a difficult to understand book. You have to understand Judaism and the Old Testament thoroughly. For instance, I used to believe Hebrews 6 spoke of people who were not saved. However, in Jewish culture, salvation, in many/most cases, refers to physical salvation, not spiritual. Also, the people are once enlightened, which speaks to regeneration, have tasted of the gospel, just as Jesus tasted of death. Jesus actually died, so these people are actually saved. The call of this part of Hebrews is for these immature believers to reject their immaturity and move on to maturity. The writer of Hebrews says that they should be teachers already, teaching others, but they are still little babies, and have no grown. They will forfeit their rewards, though they be spiritually saved. The thorns and briars burned up are not the people, but their works. They will enter the Kingdom with nothing. (I have not, myself, decided what to do with this interpretation, however, I have found that it does fall in line with the original language used. Taste does indeed mean thoroughly taken, not "nibbled" as the author I was reading said.) They even partake of the Holy Spirit, which, given the original words of the language does mean that they have the Holy Spirit. Full partakers. The problem was, they were so immature, they wanted to go to Jerusalem (the audience lived nearby) basically go back into Judaism, and then, once the persecution of the church passes over, then become Christians again. The author of Hebrews is telling them that this is impossible. Putting Jesus to an open shame is because they are saying that Jesus death is insufficient. (Stronger words were used, but they escape me at the moment.) Basically they are saying that His death falls short in power and capability.

So the Mosaic covenant (old covenant) is dead and gone, and has been replaced by the better covenant with Christ, not man, as priest.

The Law and the Old Covenant are not precisely the same, even though the Old Covenant was strongly tied to the Law.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The Law and the Old Covenant are not precisely the same, even though the Old Covenant was strongly tied to the Law.

There are more than just two covenants in humanity. "Old" and "New" are references to those to whom the Word of God is spoken to at the time. It is an appeal to the context of peoples, places, and ages.

It does not void other covenants. God tried to make a covenant with Moses after the covenant with Abraham.

Exo 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

Moses refused.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And yes, God is finished with national Israel which has served the purpose God intended, namely, bringing the savior, Jesus Christ, into the world. Those who become the new creature, the child of God, make up the Israel of God, i.e., spiritual Israel.

There is a balance to be found between both positions here.

God isn't done with the children of Abraham. Neither is God done with the children of Ishmael or the children of Cain or the children of Ham.

Each individual of all nations answer individually to Jesus Christ alone.

 

[civic]

Premillennialism is the original eschatology of the first century church. John the apostle, Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, etc. (Not to forget Augustine.) Do understand that God made Abraham a promise in covenant, in an oath given IN HIS OWN NAME, that He would do things for/to Abraham. Those things did not happen. So either, they will happen, which is what we see in a millennial kingdom on Earth, or Abraham chose to put his faith in the wrong person, and Abraham WAS NOT WRONG. The whole reason Gentiles have hope of salvation is because of Abraham's faith. The promise that all the nations of the world would be blessed by Abraham's seed, only came about because of the faith Abraham showed in taking Isaac to be sacrificed. If Abraham, who showed perhaps the greatest faith on the face of the whole planet, past, present and future, believed God would do exactly what He said, which is why God credited Abraham's faith as righteousness, shouldn't we?

The physical promises of the Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled. They were not made with Israel, but with Abraham. If God does not fulfill those promises, does that not say that Abraham's faith fell flat? Not to mention the oath God made in His own name?

ditto

 

[armylngst]

He fulfilled the law on the Christ. And all those prophecies that you probably think are unfilled have in fact been fulfilled.

Many are still looking for the fulfillment of many such prophecies because they are not familiar with the main events in the history of physical, pre-Messianic Israel, and thus they do not realize that they have already been fulfilled. Many who read OT prophecies about Israel’s tribulation, or the rebuilding of the temple, and who assume these prophecies will be fulfilled at some time in the future of modern Israel. They simply do not understand that such prophecies about Israel’s return to their homeland and their rebuilding of the temple were fulfilled in OT times.

Israel has NEVER possessed all the land that God promised by oath to Abraham. Notice, it wasn't promised by covenant to Israel, but to Abraham.The question that must be asked is, does God keep oaths He makes in His own name? God backed up His covenant with Abraham with an oath in His own name, because there is nothing higher then God by which God could make an oath.

Consider the possession of Canaan, first promised to Abraham in Gen 12:7 and subsequently repeated to him and to the other patriarchs. The point is that this promise of the land was fulfilled when Israel crossed the Jordan River and took possession of Canaan.

That is not the point. God made a covenant with Abraham, that included a rather explicit land grant.

"17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,

“To your [t]descendants I have given this land,
From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

19 the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite 20 and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim 21 and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.”"

We know from the record of Joshua and others that Israel never did possess all that God told Abraham that He would. Remember the Gibeonites? Yeah... Israel was supposed to possess their land. And more then once you will read that it said that Canaanites and others still inhabited the land, because Israel did not do as God had instructed.

As the Israelites were about to cross over, Moses said to them, “See, I have placed the land before you; go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to them and their descendants after them” (Deut 1:8). When the conquest was completed, God’s promise was fulfilled: “So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. . . . Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass” (Josh 21:43,45).

You forget what God said: " 7 I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your [f]descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your [g]descendants after you. 8 I will give to you and to your [h]descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”"

Israel hasn't been in possession of Canaan for over a two millennia. What happened to the everlasting possession?
Amos 9:
"“In that day I will raise up the fallen [d]booth of David,
And wall up its breaches;
I will also raise up its ruins
And rebuild it as in the days of old;
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom
And all the [e]nations who are called by My name,”
Declares the Lord who does this.

13 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“When the plowman will overtake the reaper
And the treader of grapes him who sows seed;
When the mountains will drip sweet wine
And all the hills will be dissolved.
14 “Also I will restore the [f]captivity of My people Israel,
And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them;
They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine,
And make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 “I will also plant them on their land,
And they will not again be rooted out from their land
Which I have given them,”
Says the Lord your God.

So God has not yet fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant, even if He has fulfilled His promises to the forefathers. (Isaac, Jacob, etc.) Israel has not possessed all the land God promised Abraham by covenant. However, as seen here, it will happen. Behold, days are coming when God will plant Israel on their land, and they will not again be rooted out. Considering Israel still hasn't taken possession of what they had in Old Testament times, and that they are constantly rooted out of their land, this prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. It's fulfillment will be the Messianic Kingdom, because Jesus won't allow anyone to overcome His Kingdom.

Some have stumbled at the way the promise is worded in Gen 17:8 where God said that Canaan would be the “everlasting possession” of Abraham’s descendants. Some take this to mean that the land of Palestine still belongs to the Jews today and will be their homeland forever. This is an erroneous idea and is based on a faulty English translation of the Hebrew word ‘olam. Though this word sometimes carries the connotation of “eternal,” it often means no more than “age-lasting” or “until the end of the age,” namely, the OT age.

Actually in Amos, God thus saith the Lord that it would be an everlasting possession. That term everlasting puts it through to the millennial kingdom, which lasts an age, hence age-lasting. You see, Israel didn't possess the land of Canaan at the end of the OT age, as most of the land had been taken away, and Israel hadn't been there for hundreds of years. But don't let a few facts cause one to stumble...

This is especially true of OT statements about things related to Israel. God’s provisions for the life and religion of Israel were not meant to endure forever. Here is a list of some other things about Israel that are described with the same Hebrew word (‘olam) and which obviously were intended to become obsolete when the Old Covenant ended: circumcision as a covenant sign, Gen 17:13; the Passover feast, Exod 12:24 (see 12:14,17); Sabbath observance, Exod 31:16-17; the Day of Atonement, Lev 16:29,31; the Aaronic priesthood, Exod 40:15; the priests’ clothing, Exod 28:43; the priests’ portion of the sacrifices, Exod 29:28 (see Lev 6:18); the priests’ washings, Exod 30:21; the bread of the Presence, Lev 24:8; the candlestick, Exod 27:21; Solomon’s temple, 1 Kgs 8:13 (see 9:3); and the Levites as custodians of the ark of the covenant, 1 Chr 15:2 (see 23:13).

The Sabbath was not obsolete during Jesus time, and for the Jews, it continues because God commanded it. Did God stop resting and start creating again? The Passover feast is to continue forever, though Jesus is the ultimate end of the sacrificial system. Why? So the Jews never forget what God did for thme in Egypt. What ceased was the sacrificial system, as Jesus was the end of that. God made a covenant with Abraham, and, covenants are made with living people, and they are fulfilled by living people. Abraham is not alive, and was not alive when Israel entered the land of Canaan. As such, Abraham will live to see/receive of this covenant promise in the Messianic Kingdom, which comes after the resurrection.

I have taken the above information from the book, "The Faith Once For All: Bible Doctrine For Today", by Jack Cottrell. I consider him to be my favorite theologian. He is gone now but I knew him in the late 50s when we were in Bible College together. I spent only two years there and then went into engineering. He continued on receiving the Bachelors, Masters and Ph.D, I don't always agree with him, but I do in the important stuff. He has written and publish fairly extensively, much of which is available online.

You should try Dr. Fruchtenbaum. When you understand what was going on in the gospels from a Jewish Messianic perspective, it really is eye opening.

 

[armylngst]

Clarify please....

Is Peter the cornerstone?

Why this question? What was it that Peter did before Jesus changed his name? A profession of faith in Christ as Messiah. Jesus is saying that He will build His church on that profession of faith. It has nothing to do with Peter. Notice Jesus said nothing about cornerstone or foundation. Just that He would build His church upon the profession of faith of true believers. For flesh and blood had not revealed it unto Peter, but the Father in heaven.

Even Peter appealed to Christ directly.

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Yes, but I don't understand what that has to do with what Jesus said?

He quotes Isaiah 8:14 from the Greek OT.

We go at it from time to time on this subject. I've made more enemies on this subject than I have most anything else.

You are obviously wrong about the foundation of the church. There is only ONE rock. So when was this "stone" laid?

You need to understand that Jesus isn't talking about the foundation of the church, as a building. The body of believers becomes the body of believers by faith in Christ. That is the rock Jesus speaks of. Jesus said that HE WILL BUILD THE CHURCH, so it would appear that since foundations don't build buildings, Jesus must mean something else.

 

[armylngst]

The Law and the Old Covenant are not precisely the same, even though the Old Covenant was strongly tied to the Law.

That is where your problem lies then. The Mosaic covenant is all about the Law. Precisely the same. What was the covenant made upon? The Law. There are those who believe that parts of the Law were only temporary, but that is not true. For the Jews, it was always meant to be fully enforced. Of course, if you are going to go the false teaching route and say that the church is Israel, then you have to make some laws disappear since the people in the church don't want to follow those laws. Pick and choose. There are 613 laws in the Mosaic Covenant. Have you made any attempt to keep them all, or do you consider yourself a Gentile believer, who, as even James and Peter said, are not under the covenant and Law. After Paul spent all his time fighting for you to not be under the law, you run to the law, and make the church Israel? Paul actively fought against the Judaizers.

 

[Jim]

That is where your problem lies then. The Mosaic covenant is all about the Law. Precisely the same. What was the covenant made upon? The Law.

No, they are not "precisely" the same. A law promises nothing. A law is composed of two things, namely, a command and an assigned penalty for failure to observe the command. There is never a reward given for observing the command. A covenant is an agreement, a contract, between two parties establishing the responsibilities and promises of the two parties. It can take on several different frameworks, but in one form or another there are "quid pro quos" associated with the covenant. In the case of the Old Covenant, it is based upon the Law.

There are those who believe that parts of the Law were only temporary, but that is not true.

Hebrews 8 and 9 gives a discussion concerning the Old and New Covenants.

Heb 8:7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Heb 8:8 But God found fault with the people and said: "The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

Heb_8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

It would appear that the Old Covenant was indeed temporary.

 

[armylngst]

No, they are not "precisely" the same. A law promises nothing. A law is composed of two things, namely, a command and an assigned penalty for failure to observe the command. There is never a reward given for observing the command. A covenant is an agreement, a contract, between two parties establishing the responsibilities and promises of the two parties. It can take on several different frameworks, but in one form or another there are "quid pro quos" associated with the covenant. In the case of the Old Covenant, it is based upon the Law.

That is what you missed. God promised blessings as a reward for Israel observing the Law/commands. And He promised curses if they did not. The Mosaic covenant was based solely on the Law and within that sacrifices of blood.

Hebrews 8 and 9 gives a discussion concerning the Old and New Covenants.

Heb 8:7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Heb 8:8 But God found fault with the people and said: "The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

Heb_8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

It would appear that the Old Covenant was indeed temporary.

The reason is because there was something wrong with the first covenant, and that is the Mosaic covenant, and not the Abrahamic, or Davidic covenants. That is why both the new and old covenants are based around blood sacrifices. The old, the Law in the Mosaic covenant required blood. The priest of the Mosaic covenant had to bring his own sacrifice, before he could even deal with the people. In the new covenant, Jesus is the priest and of the line of Melchizedek. Unlike with the Mosaic covenant and its line of priests where succession was based on death, in the line of Melchizedek, Jesus priesthood is eternal. He enters into the holiest place in heaven by His own blood.

There is a problem when people keep saying there was only one covenant. It just isn't true. There were several covenants in the Old Testament, and they were not extensions of each other.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Why this question? What was it that Peter did before Jesus changed his name? A profession of faith in Christ as Messiah. Jesus is saying that He will build His church on that profession of faith. It has nothing to do with Peter. Notice Jesus said nothing about cornerstone or foundation. Just that He would build His church upon the profession of faith of true believers. For flesh and blood had not revealed it unto Peter, but the Father in heaven.

You didn't present this earlier. I had no reason to believe you actually believe this. Many of the "replacement theology" debates do not have those that believe what you just stated.

Glad we agree on this. That "faith" you mention is based upon the ONLY cornerstone "Jesus Christ".

Yes, but I don't understand what that has to do with what Jesus said?

You need to understand that Jesus isn't talking about the foundation of the church, as a building. The body of believers becomes the body of believers by faith in Christ. That is the rock Jesus speaks of. Jesus said that HE WILL BUILD THE CHURCH, so it would appear that since foundations don't build buildings, Jesus must mean something else.

Never said otherwise. Jesus is using earthly things so that other people will know what He is talking about.

Remember what Jesus told Nicodemus....

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

I asked when this "ROCK/CORNERSTONE" was laid. It is important to realize that ROCK. Jesus Christ. Was laid before the foundation of the world. Peter also witnessed this.

1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So before there ever was a "JEW" or a "GENTILE" there was just CHRIST.

Which is why in Jesus Christ there is no Jew nor Gentile. NONE.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

He, Jesus Christ, is before all and ABOVE ALL. He is the Beginning. He is the End.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There is a problem when people keep saying there was only one covenant. It just isn't true. There were several covenants in the Old Testament, and they were not extensions of each other.

Agreed. However, they all have a central connection. God.

Heb 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,